Assignment Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Ability-Grouping-And-Academic-Achieveme 👈

1. Masalah Pendidikan Jilid J7 109
Ability Grouping and Academic Achievement
Ananda Kumar Palaniappan
University of Malaya
Abstrak
Menangani masalah perbezaan dalam pencapaian akademik di kalangan pelajar merupakan
satu perkara yang agak mencabar. Dalam proses pengajaran, terdapat pelajar yang lambat
mengikuti pelajaran manakala ada yang menganggap pengajaran tertentu itu terlalu mudah.
Ketidakserasian kadar pengajaran dengan kebolehan pelajar mungkin membangkitkan
pelbagai masalah disiplin. Pengumpulan mengikut kebolehan dianggap sebagai satu
penyelesaian untuk memenuhi keperluan pelajar yang berbeza. Kertas ini memaparkan isu-
isu berkaitan dengan pengumpulan pelajar mengikut kebolehan untuk mengatasi masalah
perbezaan pencapaian pelajan Beberapa cadangan penyelesaian masalah ini juga
dibincangkan.
Introduction
Ever since formal education was introduced, the issue of differences in the level of academic
achievement, abilities and skills among students has posed many challenges to both teachers
and school administrators. Teachers are expected to cater for these differences within the
short class period given, usually about 40 minutes. The average student may find the lesson
to be of the right level of difficulty but the slow learners tend to require more time while the
fast learners may be bored by the elementary explanations designed for slow learners. The
fast learners may require additional work of more enriching content. When needs of the
weaker and advanced learners are not satisfied, many discipline problems occur. Ability
grouping has been seen as a panacea for most of these problems. But not all ability groupings
are effective. This paper discusses issues relating to ability grouping and attempts taken to
accommodate ability differences. Some possible solutions to this problem are also discussed.
Ability Grouping
Ability grouping refers to the assigning of students to different groups or classes based on
their abilities or academic achievement. Most form of groupings are based on previous
academic achievement although groupings are sometimes

2. 110 Masalah Pendidikan Jilid 27
based on subject major, choice of electives and learning styles (Zhenhui, 200 I). Ability
grouping or tracking can take many forms. Some of the cornmon types are within-class
ability grouping, between-class ability grouping, the XYZ grouping, the Joplin Plan, non-
graded grouping, setting and a number of variations comprising a combination of grouping
types.
The within-class ability grouping involves grouping students within the class
according to their subject area performance. This grouping is dynamic and fluid; the students
change groups when their performance improves or deteriorates. Teachers are able to design
the lessons and the teaching to suit student ability more accurately (Sorensen & Hallinan,
1986). This form of grouping is favored as there is no permanent segregation of students and
mobility across groups ensures students are not stigmatized as in the permanent between-
class grouping. However, teachers of this heterogeneous grouping will need training on ways
to cater for the diversity in academic achievement and student ability levels. Special teaching
packets for students of various ability and achievement levels must also be prepared.
Teachers may need to employ the peer tutoring approach to help them with the teaching since
peer tutoring has been found to help both the tutor and the tutored.
In between-class ability grouping or tracking, students are placed in different classes
right from the beginning of the school year based on their performance in the previous year
or other measures of ability. The students do not move to a better class if their performance
improves until the following academic year.
In the XYZ classes, students are assigned to classes based on their aptitude for the full
day or for a single subject. The teachers employ instruction based on a similar syllabus for all
classes in the same Grade or Year.
The Joplin Plan sorts students according to their abilities or performances across
grade levels for a particular subject. Students return to their grade levels for the other
subjects. Administratively this may pose many problems in timetable scheduling as students
from different grade or year levels are involved. However, it has been found to benefit
advanced and weaker students since they will be placed in classes based on their abilities and
thus given ability-appropriate classroom instruction.
In non-graded grouping, students are grouped based on ability and performance rather
than age. The subjects taught are divided into levels and students progress at their own rates.
So students weak in Mathematics but good in English may be at level 2 for Mathematics but
level 5 in English. When

3. Masalah Pendidikan Jilid 27 111
Mathematics is taught they will join other students of level 2 and during English they will
study with other LevelS students. Studies on grouping have indicated usefulness of non-
graded grouping in regular schools.
The benefits or problems relating to ability grouping or tracking may depend on the
subjects taught, the student Grade Level or Year, the basis for these groupings (for example,
some groupings may be based on IQ or aptitude), the type of tests teachers use to assess the
effectiveness of ability grouping (Allan, 1991) or the student ability. Some studies have
shown that tracking benefits the high ability students but has no effect on the low ability
students (Gary, 1995).
Reid, Clunies, Goacher and Vile (I 982) found student performances in the various
types of ability grouping to depend on the subjects taught. They found that students in mixed
ability setting tend to perform better in humanities while this approach appears to be
inefficient for subjects sueh as Mathematics and Modern Foreign Languages.
In another study on within class groupings, based on qualitative interviews of 20
teachers, Kutnick, Blatchford, Clark, MacIntyre and Baines (2005) found that small group
work was more commonly used for Science and English and less for the other subjects.
At the elementary school level, within class ability grouping in Mathematics was
found to benefit students while at the secondary level this was not the case (Slavin, 1987).
Studies have also shown that the effectiveness of ability grouping may also depend on
student ability level. For example, several studies have shown that gifted students or high
ability students benefited from ability grouping (Benedict, 1986; Fe1dhusen, 1989; Kulik &
Kulik, 1982, 1984). Benedict (1986) also found that low ability students' progress was
actually hindered by ability grouping.
In the Malaysian educational environment, general weaknesses among secondary
school students were noticed in Mathematics, the Sciences and English Language. In these
subjects the range of performance was found to vary greatly making it impossible to cater for
all students at the same time. Both within-class and between-class groupings are being used
but no studies have been reported on the relative effectiveness of each of these groupings.
However, in a study undertaken in the United Kingdom (Hallam, Ireson, Lister, &
Chaudhury, 2003) within-class ability grouping appeared to be more common for core
subjects like Mathematics and English.

4. 112 Masalah Pendidikan Jilid 27
Advantages and Disadvantages of Between-class Ability Grouping
Between-class ability grouping or tracking has many advantages. Kulik and Kulik (1984), for
example, found that ability grouping has benefited high ability students. From the high
ability students' viewpoint, it enables them to compete with other students of similar abilities
and this motivates them to try harder. They use other better performing students as
benchmarks to assess their own performance. Ability grouping was also found to benefit
gifted students (Allan, 1991; Fcldhusen, 1989; Kulik & Kulik, 1984). As for low ability
students, studies by Slavin (1990) have shown that ability grouping may also favor these
students because teachers are better able to give them more attention and design ability
appropriate activities for them.
Teachers certainly find it easier to teach students with similar academic ability and
therefore are able to design activities most appropriate for them. They will be able to attend
to students' problems which are expected to be less diverse than those found in heterogeneous
groupings. (Teachers of heterogeneous classes have problems giving attention to all students
within the short time given because of the diverse nature of help the students need).
However, many disadvantages of between-class ability grouping have been shown by
researchers (Hallam & Ireson, 2005; Oakes, 1985). Among the most detrimental of them is
the effect on low track students' self-esteem and their stigmatization (Oakes, 1985). It can
also cause the maldistribution of ethnic and racial groups in the lower track classes which
may lead to severe social problems (Braddock & Slavin, 1989; Reid et al., 1982; Sorensen &
Hallinan, 1986). The socio-economically deprived students were also found to be more
predominant at the lower end ofthe grouping (Raze, 1984). It has also been said that the
learning at the lower end may be reduced to nothing more than rote learning of basic skills
(Gary, 1995). For example, Veves (1989) found that higher order thinking skills like
analyzing, making inferences and evaluating are not taught to students of below average
abilities.
Teachers assigned to these classes tend to have low expectations of their students and
this may inadvertently lead to "dumbed down" instruction which may reinforce existing
weaknesses; some teachers may even refuse to teach such classes (Good & Marshall, 1984;
Oakes, 1987; Slavin 1987,1990). In another study based on student views of ability grouping,
students were found to be unhappy with their placement in groups (Boaler, William, &
Brown, 2000).

5. Masalah Pendidikan Jilid 27 113
However, studies by Gamoran (1987) and Slavin (1990, 1993) have shown that ability
groupings have little or no effect on student achievement. An earlier study by Goldberg,
Passow, & Justman (1966) found that ability grouping has no effect on students regardless of
ability level. It appears that the effect of ability grouping may depend on other factors
mentioned earlier such as age, criteria used in forming the groups, and subject major. For
example, Thompson (1973) found that ability grouping in social sciences appears to be more
beneficial than in other subjects.
Theories Relating to the Effectiveness of Ability Grouping
Many theories have been proposed to explain the apparent effectiveness of between-class
ability grouping in promoting academic achievement. Bandura's social learning theory
appears to explain the increased performances of high ability students in the between-class
grouping context. Glass's (2002) discussion on Kulik & Kulik's (1984) and Slavin's (1987,
1990) meta-analysis of studies on ability grouping has provided indisputable evidence that
between-class grouping has indeed benefited the high ability students. Based on the social
learning theory, Glass (2002) explained that high ability students tend to model the behavior
of other high achieving students and as such are motivated to engage in more challenging
tasks. Similarly, at the lower end of ability grouping students show increased tendencies to
model those who are popular and underachieving; students who excel in their studies are
sometimes branded as "nerds". This peer modeling theory provides a comprehensive
explanation for the differential achievement among different ability students in the ability
grouping context.
Possible Solutions
Studies and writings have proposed a number of solutions to overcome problems associated
with ability groupings. Among the most common ones are setting and blocking (a modified
form of ability grouping), "school within school" method and Computer Aided Instruction.
Setting and Blocking
Findings based on experimental and quasi experimental studies undertaken to ascertain the
benefits of tracking have proposed many solutions to overcome the bad effects of ability
grouping. Two of these were the setting approach and a combination of setting and blocking
approach.

6. 114 Masalah Pendidikan Jilid 27
Both approaches have been used in Malaysian schools. Setting can be considered a form of
selective grouping. The set system enables classes within a particular grade or year to be
placed in between-class ability grouping for certain subjects only, with students returning to
their normal classes for other subjects. For example, some schools have introduced the set
system for Mathematics and English. These two subjects have been found to have a vast
range in performance among the students which is an important criterion for using the set
system. Setting is suggested to overcome the ill effects of between-class ability grouping and
to ensure student self-esteem is unaffected.
A similar setting approach was recommended in 1997 by the Government White
Paper Excellence in Schools (DfEE, 1997) in the United Kingdom which found that setting
raised academic performances and had significant beneficial effects including reduction in
pressure among teachers who are able to maintain a suitable pace and can focus on a range of
attainment with a particular class.
Another variation of the set system is the block system. In the block system two or
more sets are used and are carried out at different times. For example, block A for setting in
English for Form 4 students could be from 8.00 to 8.40 am. During this time, probably three
classes will be taught in the set method based on their ability or proficiency in English. Block
B for setting in English for Form 4 students involving three other classes could be from 11.00
to 11.40 am. This method of setting has been found to be very useful with limited teaching
staff The same teachers could be teaching both blocks of classes, whereas more teachers
would be required in single setting.
However, studies undertaken by Whitburn (200 1) as well as Ireson and Hallam (200
1) have found that setting might not raise academic performances and sometimes may even
lower them. This approach, they say, might also affect student personal and social
development (Hallam et aI., 2002).
School Within a School
On a wider scale, the diversity of ability and interests are catered for by creating schools
within schools. For example, students interested in biology and chemistry go to a school that
caters for pure sciences, students interested in mathematics and physics are grouped into a
school that specializes in the physical sciences, while students interested in history,
geography and languages are placed in the social sciences school. If high achievers are
mainly students interested in professional courses, schools are also created based on the
students' interests.

7. Masalah Pendidikan Jilid 27 115
Computer Aided Instruction
Educational technology can help circumvent issues arising from inability to cater for
diversity of student achievement levels as well as differences in learning styles. The
computer aided instruction approach where content is designed to match individual student
ability level appears to be very effective. Some programs can "intelligently" determine the
students' entry level when they first use the courseware; other more sophisticated programs
can detect the learners' preferred learning styles and their multiple intelligences. These
courseware can pitch instruction to student ability level and provide the necessary teaching
and exercises to enhance achievement. The courseware uses the relevant learning and
motivational theories to encourage students to try even more challenging tasks. With such
courseware, the teacher's role is now more as a facilitator rather than content designer and
provider. Computer aided instruction is seen as another approach to help alleviate problems
arising from diversity in student achievement levels.
Conclusion
How to address students of varying abilities and academic achievement has been well
researched and many suggestions have been proposed. These suggestions ranged from
individualized teaching within the classroom to permanent ability grouping for the whole
year. Each mode has its merits and these appear to depend on the student Grade level, ability
level as well as the subject. Findings have found the between-class ability grouping to be less
taxing on the teachers but detrimental to student personal and social development.
Several principles may be used as guidelines for ability grouping. Slavin has
proposed that grouping should only be done when it reduces heterogeneity which will
facilitate learning. Student progress must be reassessed frequently and grouping changed to
reflect changes in student performance. Setting appears to help school administrators to apply
another form of "within-class" ability grouping on a larger scale and block setting seems to
help administrators to better assign a limited number of teachers. However, it appears that
there are no hard and fast rules on ability grouping for enhanced achievement. Ability
grouping should be applied judiciously in order not to disadvantage any student who may be
already disadvantaged.

8. 116 Masalah Pendidikan Jilid 27
References
Allan, S. D. (1991). Ability-grouping research reviews: What do they say about grouping and
the gifted? Educational Leadership, 48(6), 60-65.
Benedict, M. G. (1986). An annotated bibliography of the literature dealing with grouping
pupils by ability in elementary classes. [Abstract). South Bend:
Indiana University.
Boaler, 1., William, D., & Brown, M. (2000). Students' experiences of ability grouping -
disaffection, polarization and the construction of failure. British Educational
Research Journal, 26(5), 631-648.
Braddock, J.H.,II & Slavin, R. E. (1989). Tracking: Trends. effects. and alternatives.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Project 1, Center for Research on Effective
Schooling for Disadvantaged Students.
Department for Education and Employment (1997). Excellence in schools.
London: The Stationery Office.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1989, March). Synthesis of research on gifted youth. Educational
Leadership, 6-11.
Gamoran,A. (1987). Organization, instruction, and the effects of ability grouping:
Comment on Slavin's Best-Evidence Synthesis. Review of Educational Research,
57(3), 341-345.
Gary, B. (1995). Alternatives to ability grouping: Still unanswered questions.
New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education.
Glass, G. V. (2002). School reform proposals: The research evidence. Grouping students for
instruction. [Summary]. Tempe, AZ: Education Policy Studies Laboratory, Education
Policy Research Unit, Arizona State University. Retrieved May 17, 2004, from
http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/ documents/EPRU%202002-10 1 /Summary-Of
.Glass.doc
Goldberg, M., Passow, A. H., & Justman, 1. (1966). The effects of ability grouping.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Good, T., & Marshall, S. (1984). Do students learn more in heterogeneous or homogeneous
groups? In P. Peterson, L.C. Wilkinson, & M. Hallinan (Eds.), The social context of
instruction: Group organization and group processes, pp.15-38. New York:
Academic.
Hallam, S., & Ireson, 1. (2005). Secondary school teachers' pedagogic practices when
teaching mixed and structured ability classes. Research Papers in Education, 20(1}, 3-
24.
Hallam, S., Ireson, J., & Davies, J. (2002). Effective pupil grouping in primary school-A
practical guide. London: Fulton.
Hallam, S., Ireson, 1., Lister, V, & Chaudhury, I. A. (2003). Ability grouping:
Practices in the Primary School: A survey. Educational Studies, 29(1), 69-83.

9. Masalah Pendidikan Jilid 27 117
Ireson, 1, & Hallam, S. (2001). Ability grouping in education. London: Sage.
Kutnick, P., Blatchford, P., Clark, H., MacIntyre, H., & Baines, E. (2005). Teachers'
understandings of the relationship between within-class (pupil) grouping and learning
in secondary schools. Educational Research, 47(1),1-24.
Kulik, C. c., & Kulik, 1. A. (1982). Highlights from research on ability grouping. [Abstract.]
Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Kulik, C. c., & Kulik, 1. A. (1984). Effects of ability grouping on elementary school pupils: A
meta-analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological
Association, Toronto, Ontario.
Oakes, 1. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Oakes, 1. (1987). Tracking in secondary schools: A contextual perspective.
Educational Psychologist, 22, 129-153.
Raze, N. (1984). Overview of research on ability grouping. [Abstract.] Redwood City, CA:
San Mateo County Office of Education.
Reid, M. E., Clunies, L. R., Goacher, B., & Vile, D. (1982). Mixed ability teaching:
Problems and possibilities. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-
evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293-336.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-
evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 471-499.
Slavin, R. E. (1993). Ability grouping in the middle grades: Achievement effects and
alternatives. Elementary School Journal, 93(5), 535-552.
Sorensen, A. B., & Hallinan, M. 1. (1986). Effects of ability grouping on growth in
achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 2 3(4), 519-542.
Thompson, 'G. W. (1973). The effects of ability grouping upon achievement in Eleventh Grade
American History. Dissertation Abstracts International, 34(4), 1503A-1504A.
Veves, M. (1989, Fall). Beyond tracking: A teacher's view. Equity and Choice, 6(1), 18-22.
Whitburn, 1. (2001). Effective classroom organization in primary schools:
Mathematics. Oxford Review of Education, 27(3), 411-428.
Zhenhui, R. (2001). Matching teaching styles with learning styles in East Asian Contexts. The
Internet TESL Journal, VII (7). Retrieved July 3, 2004, from
http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Zhenhui-TeachingStyles.html